By Barnabi Joseph Dai, Kings College London and Odisha Sklani, Kings College London
Dams have been a symbol of the World Bank’s approach to development for decades. In the early years of the bank in the 1960s and 1970s, large -scale infrastructure projects such as dams, power plants and transport networks were central to its strategy for economic growth and poverty reduction. This reflects the latest sample.
But the controversial social, economic and environmental impact of the dams gave rise to widespread criticism. This reduced internal scrutiny and financing by the 1990s. Notable examples include withdrawal from the bank’s Narmada Dam and Nepal’s Arun III Hydropower Project. Both followed mass protests.
Since 2007, bank support for dams has begun to rise again, which shows the growing portfolio of the projects. There were two main drivers. Hydropower received a new appeal as a low carbon energy source. And infrastructure -led economic growth was highlighted in development policy. Nevertheless, the debates have not been erased before: questions about social, environmental and political consequences continue to affect decision -making.
This raises the question of whether anything has changed? Is the World Bank Dams Different Today? Did past protests and policy reforms had a lasting impact?
We are examining the politics of development, focusing on the decisions of the dam in Africa and South Asia. In a recent book chapter, we show that the debates on the dams are not fixed. The reforms have strengthened planning, diagnosis and reduction of impact. But the change has been gradually, competition and layers, which reflect the deep political nature of large -scale infrastructure projects.
In the book, we detect how the World Bank’s view on dams has changed over decades. We ask if reforms have really changed how dams are built and their effects.
Need to answer. The reforms have improved planning, impact diagnosis and reduction. These changes have really reduced the negative social and environmental impact. But they have been introduced slowly in layers, completely changing the old methods.
Some adverse effects are ignored, and compensation schemes are often insufficient. The balance of trade has changed. Nevertheless, decades of reforms have not resolved the tensions around the dam building. They both have a passionate debate both inside and outside the bank.
This shows the World Bank as a dynamic institution, which is caused by debates and competition. They are from organizations and governments, communities and civil society. Policy -making and implementation are naturally a process of competition. Both need careful negotiations, supervision and engagement.
Our searches highlight the importance of important engagement and independent research to affect how large -scale infrastructure projects are planned and implemented. And bring the alternative point of view into institutional decision -making.
The evolution of the dam building
From mid -20th century, the World Bank fought major dam projects as economic growth engines. The bank supported hydropower and irrigation infrastructure in Asia, Africa and Latin America. These projects often prefer technical and financial feasibility over social and environmental issues.
The results were important: widespread migration, environmental loss and resistance from affected communities and advocacy groups.
Civil society, educational research and internal bank discussions rapidly criticized this view. By the 1990s, developmental thinking began to change. More emphasis was on participation, environmental security and social participation. Concepts such as sustainable livelihood, social capital, and community -driven development have gained traction. Partnership approaches became more prominent.
The bank quickly positioned itself as a “Knowledge Bank”. He began to collect data and emphasize local consultation along with financing.
New mechanisms have been introduced to protect embellishness and reservations. These include reviews of social and environmental impacts and stakeholders. Nevertheless, these processes often go on within the existing framework that prefer economic and engineering purposes. The result was that technical and financial reservations were largely central.
Participation or performance?
The theory, local consultation and stakeholder’s engagement has become an essential form of World Bank’s approach to the development of the dam. However, in practice, these processes often work more as legitimate tools than the actual power distribution mechanisms.
For example, in Nepal, the World Bank’s subsidiary promotes sustainable hydropower through the International Finance Corporation, stakeholder -based discussions and training programs. Yet these measures often exclude key local actors. Instead, focus is on government agencies, industry representatives and international donors.
Similarly, at the Rosomo Falls Dam in Tanzania, re -settlement committees comprising the affected communities were set up to contact the project authorities and advise on compensation. The committees formally provided the local input. But they had a limited power to challenge national governments or change major financial and infrastructure decisions.
To summarize, the bank shares critical voices with its priorities. Local communities may express concerns. But their influence on the pace of development projects is limited.
Where the change comes from
Scholars have often attributed changes to the World Bank policy to external pressure. These include the advocacy of civil society, the intellectual discussions on development and the development of global principles.
These factors certainly play a role. But our research highlights the importance of internal dynamics within the organization.
Inside the bank, competitive factions cause stress that operates both reform and continuity. For example, financing focuses on lending goals. Engineers prefer large -scale infrastructure. Other social and environmental concerns support.
This internal competition helps to explain why the policies of the new World Bank Dam often fail to produce expected results. The policy evolution is gradual. New priorities are on the current framework. The result is a mixture of change and continuity.
Distining to solidarity, the World Bank is an institution that is formed an ongoing internal debate. Different interests, factions and ideas increase and fall over time.
Re -considering participation
Dams are a microorganism of broader development debates. They call for political choices and trade relations between infrastructure needs, financial support, environmental stability, social equality and economic impact.
The World Bank shows these tensions internally, how decisions are made with competitive priorities and factions.
The challenge of those interested in meaningful reforms is to embed more comprehensive governance and decision -making. Participation should be beyond the token consultation. This should include real power sharing with the affected communities, strong accountability methods and real influence on project results.
Barnabi Joseph Dye, Lecturer, Kings College London and Odisha Sklani, Lecturer, Kings College London
This article is reproduced from the conversation under a creative license. Read the original article.
